Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!ucbvax!nike!caip!unirot!pooh
From: pooh@unirot.UUCP (Nasty, Brutish and Short)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: "SO" is no good (new? topic)
Message-ID: <443@unirot.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Mar-86 09:40:48 EST
Article-I.D.: unirot.443
Posted: Sat Mar 29 09:40:48 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Apr-86 00:47:48 EST
References: <267@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <2902@reed.UUCP>
Reply-To: pooh@unirot.UUCP (Nasty, Brutish and Short)
Organization: Public Access Un*x, Piscataway NJ (The Soup Kitchen)
Lines: 22
Keywords: words definitions


Of course, there's always "honey"--but I don't think even *I* could
get away with that. :-)

My SO (Significant Other, Special One, Sex Object, Silly Osterizer)
calls me his "sweetie," but that might not meet your minimum adult
daily requirement of dignity.

If the person involved is not even really a lover, how about
"Pelvic Affiliate"?  (I heard this coined a few years ago and loved
it.)

"Special Friend"?  No.  Shades of Mr. Rogers.

Personally, I'd like to see "Studmuffins" come into wider usage. . .:-)

Cheers,
Pooh             topaz!unipress!pooh
                 topaz!unirot!pooh
                 pooh@aim.rutgers.edu

"It was intense, in its own plodding way. . ."